corporate record labels caught in payola scandal

eliot spitzer embodies the convenient, yet unfair divide that allows mainstream pundits the chance to define america in black-and-white terms.

either you deeply admire his crusade against anti-trust violators, or you consider him the liberal bane of lassie-faire economic theory.

spitzer is the now famous, or infamous depending on your point-of-view, new york attorney general who has, since he entered office, regularly targeted corporate criminals with his brand of white-collar justice.

and his greatest achievement yet, at least as far as my own pretentious passion for independent music is concerned, was gloriously reported in the new york times this week.

two times reporters noted july 26 that sony bmg music subsidiary epic records was busted by new york state investigators in a payola scheme that spitzer described as a “broad effort by the recording industry to curry favor with radio station programmers in exchange for their promises to play specific songs.”

that’s called “payola,” and not only is it very fucking illegal, but it stinks of what so many have refused to admit for too long: corporate record labels have changed little since the 50s when radio djs openly accepted payments in exchange for circulating mainstream label acts through top 40 lists whether consumers had made them top picks or not.

the only difference is increased sophistication.

“the state investigation found that sony bmg, which releases music by acts including jennifer lopez, good charlotte and beyoncé. had provided stations with entertainers for station-affiliated concerts or paid for station equipment or other bills in exchange for having its songs played. it also provided vacations and electronic goods for on-air giveaways in a direct trade for airplay. and it hired independent promoters to funnel money to radio stations.”

gosh, does that suggest mainstream record labels believe they can craft consumer tastes, rather than provide in response to them? why would corporate record labels make that very unfortunate assumption if it hadn’t benefited their bottom line in the past?

oh, but it gets better. the times reports:

“mr. spitzer said in the settlement documents, ‘sony bmg and the other record labels present the public with a skewed picture of the country’s ‘best’ and ‘most popular’ recorded music.’”

that statement at least subtly suggests eliot spitzer has a better grasp of rock music’s role as a vehicle of genuine human expression than the suited corporate slugs who inhabit the mainstream record industry. then again, only commies would suggest maybe not every facet of the human experience should be wholly commodified.